local-path-provisioner VS helmfile

Deploy local-path-provisioner storage class but it does not support readwritemany so for high availability of your Kubernetes cluster better to use longhorn

I use this one. I'm waiting for the day it's combined with syncthing to sync across all nodes. https://github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner

So I have this single node k3s cluster. k3s uses local-path (https://github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner) as default SC that allows one to create dynamic volumes using nodes local storage.

Just create 1 single partition and format it with whatevery filesystem you like. And then use ranchers local-path-provisioner which will create a folder per PV (k3s has this integrated by default).

Tinkering locally with local path provisioner (https://github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner), I find that I can delete and re-create the pod, and the data persists on disk. However, if I delete the PVC, when I recreate the PVC, a new directory on disk is created.

It is better to use https://github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner (or similar) for this case which will do PVC on local directories because manually linking PV<>PVC will not work.

Since you only have one physical node anyway, I would just make the cluster a single-node cluster (1 VM) and use local storage on that VM. I’m biased though because this is what I do (I run K3s and use local path provisioner).

Rancher's Local Path Provisioner - From reading, seems to just use HostPath or Local PVs under the hood, but adds dynamic provisoning

With any of those tools, you'd implement a network storage on top of a network storage. I would go with mouting few volumes per node +local storage like (https://github.com/rancher/local-path-provisioner).

What we’re going to install into the newly created AKS cluster is located in the helm directory. The descriptive Helmfile approach enables us to define applications and their settings in the helmfile.yaml file.

Is there any alternative to https://github.com/roboll/helmfile you are currently using in your company.

Interesting, I have approached this problem using Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to define a “platform release package.”

To make managing the Helm deployments a little easier I used helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile).

But in general it's always easier to keep things quite separated. Meaning in separate helm releases. If you want to be able to manage things "together" at will, then you can use helmfile ( https://github.com/roboll/helmfile )

I agree; helm is too declarative.

Whenever I can, I use helmfile[0] for storing variables for helm since it does add a declarative layer on top of helm.

0 - https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I went through the Helmfile repo Readme to figure out the difference between helmfile sync and helmfile apply. It seems like unlike the apply command, the sync command doesn't do a diff and helm upgrades the hell out of all releases 😃. But from the word sync, you'd expect the command to apply those releases that have been changed. There is also mention of the potential application of helmfile apply to periodically syncing of releases. Why not use helmfile sync for this purpose? Overall, the difference didn't become crystal clear, and I though there could probably be more to it. So, I'm asking.

helmfile is something i’ve used in the past for this https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I always felt like dependencies in helm are for very simple non-coupled packages. I many times use Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to manage dependencies instead of banging my head with vanilla Helm.

Once you do that, learn to create dynamic helm charts that use go templating and conditionals: https://github.com/roboll/helmfile